MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399899541 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noae103

Leptomeningeal metastases from solid tumors: A Society for Neuro-Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus review on clinical management and future directions

2024· review· en· W4399899541 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Wilcox, Ugonma Chukwueke, Myung‐Ju Ahn, Ayal A. Aizer, Tejus Bale, Dieta Brandsma, Priscilla K. Brastianos, Susan Chang, Mariza Daras, Peter Forsyth, Livia Garzia, Michael Glantz, Isabella C. Glitza Oliva, Priya Kumthekar, Émilie Le Rhun, Seema Nagpal, Barbara O’Brien, Elena Pentsova, Eudocia Q. Lee, Ján Remšík, Roberta Rudà, Inna Smalley, Michael D. Taylor, Michael Weller, Jeffrey S. Wefel, Jonathan T. Yang, Robert J. Young, Patrick Y. Wen, Adrienne Boire

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology
KeywordsClinical OncologyMedicineOncologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leptomeningeal metastases (LM) are increasingly becoming recognized as a treatable, yet generally incurable, complication of advanced cancer. As modern cancer therapeutics have prolonged the lives of patients with metastatic cancer, specifically in patients with parenchymal brain metastases, treatment options, and clinical research protocols for patients with LM from solid tumors have similarly evolved to improve survival within specific populations. Recent expansions in clinical investigation, early diagnosis, and drug development have given rise to new unanswered questions. These include leptomeningeal metastasis biology and preferred animal modeling, epidemiology in the modern cancer population, ensuring validation and accessibility of newer leptomeningeal metastasis diagnostics, best clinical practices with multimodality treatment options, clinical trial design and standardization of response assessments, and avenues worthy of further research. An international group of multi-disciplinary experts in the research and management of LM, supported by the Society for Neuro-Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology, were assembled to reach a consensus opinion on these pressing topics and provide a roadmap for future directions. Our hope is that these recommendations will accelerate collaboration and progress in the field of LM and serve as a platform for further discussion and patient advocacy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207